Its the Same with Capitalism All Over

 

 

Its the same with Capitalism all over
Its the Poor what gets the blame......
Its the Rich what gets the profit
 Its always the c****** same

[with apologies to the old music hall song]

 

 

I am feeling pretty annoyed actually. I am having trouble dredging up my sense of humour. Normally I can laugh even at my political opponents and their weird, not to say mad, ideas. But this weekend it seems as if there has been a united front to blame the poor [aka working classes, unemployed, benefit claimants and disabled]

 

Purveyors of spin seem to have been working flat out. We had the head of Iceland blaming schools, hospitals etc demands for cheap meals for the use of horsemeat in their economy meals [see photo and link above, thank you to Politics UK facebook page for this] [I seem to remember that such institutions are mandated by government to tender for cheapest prices. A discussion for another day, obviously]

 

Iain Duncan-Smith appearing on the Andrew Marr show yesterday changed a discussion on whether or not Job seekers 'forced' to work for nothing but their job seekers allowance in various 'work experience' placements should in fact receive more than the job seeker allowance into a discussion on whether Graduates feel that working in a supermarket stacking shelves is beneath them. It follows a High Court ruling on the case of Cait Reilly. Anyone following the case of Cait Reilly will know that was not the argument and the link in this paragraph leads to info for those who have not followed it. But Duncan-Smith was neatly attempting to deflect attention from the ruling of the High Court Judge and the thinking behind the whole 'work experience' issue.

 

Boris Johnson decided to weigh in with a plea for those in the underprivileged class who may be in line for paying mansion tax. In his column in The Telegraph last week, he described the tax as 'nihilistic class war' and said it would prevent these poor home owners from carrying out necessary repairs thus:

 

If you see one of those damp patches appear on the ceiling – about the size and colour of a poppadom – you should just lie back and watch it grow. If the floorboards yawn open, just cover the gap with cardboard. Never mind the state of the downstairs lavatory. A faint aroma of ammonia never hurt anyone. Drip from the ceiling? Shove a bucket under it.
 

Rather an insult to other London citizens who are living in less sumptous properties or worrying about being hit with the bedroom tax. [Surely that is more a case for 'nihilistic class war? And isn't 'nihilist class' an oxymoron?] And whilst we are on the subject of bedroom tax, if one is living in an overcrowded property, could one claim a rebate of rent, a sort of anti-bedroom tax? Just wondering.

 

BTW the last line of the bowdlerised verse at the head of the blog has a word beginning with 'c' which has been censored. If you watch the wonderful Stella  with Ruth Jones on Sky TV, it is Rhiannon's favourite word!

 

Bad mood expunged. Now to do some c***ing housework.

Punishing the Unemployed

We really do seem to be returning to the thinking of the 19th Century where the Protestant Work Ethic - amongst other thought provoking ideas - basically laid forth the idea that the rich were showing God's approval by being rich and the poor God's disapproval by starving.

Iain Duncan Smith - as reported in today's Observer [click on blog title above to read the article] wants Job Seekers to be penalised for their audacity in previously working for industries/workplaces that can no longer retain their services. So to show them their sins and remind them what it is like to maintain "habits and routines" of working life [quote from the article] the suggestion is that the unemployed will have to undertake "mandatory work activity" of at least 30 hours a week for a four-week period [quote]. Apparently the Department for Work and Pensions is planning to organise this by contracting private providers who will presumably arrange placing the unemployed with charities, voluntary organisations and so forth.

Lots of objections spring to mind and will probably continue even after I have logged off. The sheer audacity of the way that this has been announced with no regard for the feelings of those who are unfortunate enough to be long term unemployed cannot even be described or listed. However these are just a few additional 'objections' that immediately occur:

1. Will the 'volunteers' in any way displace those already employed? Litter gathering and gardening as suggested in an article on the BBC news homepage should already be covered by local workers, for instance

2. Many of these 'volunteer' jobs will require some sort of training. Who pays the trainers or will they also be taken from those naughty, naughty individuals in the ranks of the unemployed?

3. Fares/Expenses: One assumes that in areas where the population of unemployed is in a higher ratio to the employed than others there will be less 'volunteer' jobs to go around. Therefore there will be fares/expenses involved in the logistics of 'matching' individuals and work. This will surely put the benefits bill up?

4. Insurance: These part-time/temporary workers will have to be insured. They may not be permitted to use machinery because training is insufficient and insurance would not cover.

5. At the end of the mandatory work period where are the jobs that our 'volunteers' are now raring to fill? Would I be cynical to suggest that nothing will have changed really? The real winners will be bureaucracy - a lot of forms will have been completed and possibly a few more civil service jobs created? And the private providers that are organising the scheme of course. Oh but wait a minute - wasn't that one of the ConDem pledges to cut down on bureaucracy and the Civil Service? I must have misheard that.

Picture today is of Robert Tressell's grave - author of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. I may have mentioned this book before. Tressell may be spinning in his grave today. I hope not, may he [and the others with him] sleep gently.